road safety week
Discussion
On the BBC this morning was a report from their reporter Singita Myskna. In it she stated in the context of children being involved in accidents on the road "Hundreds of lives a year could be saved if we simply slowed down and stuck to speed limits"
It is as a statement clearly drivel produced by regurgitating various bits of spin used to justify the placement of speed cameras, but more than that it is a bit of BBC journalisim which should be even handed and on an issue as important as road safety should try to dispel myths and focus on facts that will help improve the situation.
Given that the report was designed to coincide with Road Safety Awareness Week makes this an even more irresponsible bit of journalisim. Improvements in road safety are something we would all like to see, but they will only happen if the facts are reported by the media in an even handed manner. The reality is that children are more likely to be struck than adults not through the action of the drivers who by definition cannot know in advance of an accident if the person being hit is a child or an adult, but through the actions of the children. The suggestion therefore that the drivers slowing down would be all that was required is both incorrect and dangerously suggests to childern that their actions are not to blame and have no bearing.
We all know that childern (and idiots on pushbikes and motorbikes who listen to their Ipod while riding and can't hear you approach) are a liability and if the kids in particular want to be safe they have to act safely, We used to get fed the Green Cross Code when I was a kid and road safety stuff used to be on the Telly all the time, now the focus is on punishing the motorist with various cameras and media driven moral outrage at their appalling behaviour. That is not to say that many drivers are not idiots too, but this stuff should focus on the behaviour of everyone. If I have an accident with another car blame is apportioned according to the events, if I hit a pedestrian and it is not my fault you can bet I will be the bad driver that killed someone, even if the pedestrian threw themselves lemming like on my bonnet.
This means that many road accidents involving pedestrians have victims that are scarecely recognised, the drivers and passengers in cars who often find themselves thrown into a situation not of their making in which they are in the terrible position of having been in a car when a pedestrian has made an unexpected move to cross a road and walked into their path, leaving them both the victim of the emtional effects of an accident they could do nothing to avoid and the victim of the moral approbation that is driven by the sort of misguided reporting shown by the BBC this morning and the twitterings of the police spokespersons who pop up on the telly and stumble through identikit statements.
This is the tradidtional week for car enthusiasts to get grief as the bogeymen of the environment and road safety from campaigners who neither recognise wider road safety issues or understand that the car is - for some of us - not just about "getting from a to b" If the focus of this week is on road safety, it needs to be looked at seriously and not as a one sided issue driven by organisations whose interest is rooted in personal tragedy, which every death on the road is. The trouble is that the emtional response to each death does not collectively elicit a solution just lots of fervent axe grinding.
Perhaps this road safety week could be when we focus on proper solutions to road safety issues. More advanced training for drivers and pedestrians; changing the silly situation whereby driving seems to be a right instead of something some people just can't do (witness the juxtaposition between bad driving beeng terrible and deadly and TV shows about bad learner drivers being on primetime); looking seriously at the camera debate and the role of the police.
Road safety is too serious an issue to be led by campaign groups, it should not be an area in which manipulation of statistics is acceptable, or in which policy can be dictated by short term political expediency. It is no stretch of the facts to say that many of those who have died on the roads in recent years would not have done so if road safety policy had addressed the issues above before now.
It is as a statement clearly drivel produced by regurgitating various bits of spin used to justify the placement of speed cameras, but more than that it is a bit of BBC journalisim which should be even handed and on an issue as important as road safety should try to dispel myths and focus on facts that will help improve the situation.
Given that the report was designed to coincide with Road Safety Awareness Week makes this an even more irresponsible bit of journalisim. Improvements in road safety are something we would all like to see, but they will only happen if the facts are reported by the media in an even handed manner. The reality is that children are more likely to be struck than adults not through the action of the drivers who by definition cannot know in advance of an accident if the person being hit is a child or an adult, but through the actions of the children. The suggestion therefore that the drivers slowing down would be all that was required is both incorrect and dangerously suggests to childern that their actions are not to blame and have no bearing.
We all know that childern (and idiots on pushbikes and motorbikes who listen to their Ipod while riding and can't hear you approach) are a liability and if the kids in particular want to be safe they have to act safely, We used to get fed the Green Cross Code when I was a kid and road safety stuff used to be on the Telly all the time, now the focus is on punishing the motorist with various cameras and media driven moral outrage at their appalling behaviour. That is not to say that many drivers are not idiots too, but this stuff should focus on the behaviour of everyone. If I have an accident with another car blame is apportioned according to the events, if I hit a pedestrian and it is not my fault you can bet I will be the bad driver that killed someone, even if the pedestrian threw themselves lemming like on my bonnet.
This means that many road accidents involving pedestrians have victims that are scarecely recognised, the drivers and passengers in cars who often find themselves thrown into a situation not of their making in which they are in the terrible position of having been in a car when a pedestrian has made an unexpected move to cross a road and walked into their path, leaving them both the victim of the emtional effects of an accident they could do nothing to avoid and the victim of the moral approbation that is driven by the sort of misguided reporting shown by the BBC this morning and the twitterings of the police spokespersons who pop up on the telly and stumble through identikit statements.
This is the tradidtional week for car enthusiasts to get grief as the bogeymen of the environment and road safety from campaigners who neither recognise wider road safety issues or understand that the car is - for some of us - not just about "getting from a to b" If the focus of this week is on road safety, it needs to be looked at seriously and not as a one sided issue driven by organisations whose interest is rooted in personal tragedy, which every death on the road is. The trouble is that the emtional response to each death does not collectively elicit a solution just lots of fervent axe grinding.
Perhaps this road safety week could be when we focus on proper solutions to road safety issues. More advanced training for drivers and pedestrians; changing the silly situation whereby driving seems to be a right instead of something some people just can't do (witness the juxtaposition between bad driving beeng terrible and deadly and TV shows about bad learner drivers being on primetime); looking seriously at the camera debate and the role of the police.
Road safety is too serious an issue to be led by campaign groups, it should not be an area in which manipulation of statistics is acceptable, or in which policy can be dictated by short term political expediency. It is no stretch of the facts to say that many of those who have died on the roads in recent years would not have done so if road safety policy had addressed the issues above before now.
dans, can you remember what time, channel and programme the report was on?
I'd be up for getting in touch with the complaints department about shoddy reporting. Perhaps if enough people complain it might prompt a bit more awareness at the beeb. Or perhaps they have a quota of government propoganda that they have to regurgitate as so called "news"
I'd be up for getting in touch with the complaints department about shoddy reporting. Perhaps if enough people complain it might prompt a bit more awareness at the beeb. Or perhaps they have a quota of government propoganda that they have to regurgitate as so called "news"
Interesting.............. Whislt I dont doubt "some" fatalities are due to excesive speed, and not being able to stop in time (in all fairness to the report), dans right, they make no mention of the kids/pedestrians who dice with death every day when they cross the road.
Even if a car is, for example exceeding 30 in a 30 zone, surely a pedestrian crossing the road who looked first, would see it?. Lets back off the car driver, and concentrate on educating kids at school for a start on basic road safety awareness for pedestians/cyclists.
There is a classic junction in Aberdeen, you come up to Union Road, waiting to turn left, you can bet your life on it that when your lights go green, as you turn the corner, there are a dozen or so bloody pedestrians, and I am talking, grown up folk, who think they have time to nip across the road in time, although the pedestrian lights have been red for a minute or so.
Folk walking the streets just done appreciate the concentration drives have to have these days to drive, a) within the speed limit, b) watch cars behind them, c) cars in front of them, need I go on...... not really we are all motorists. I Supose perception will neve change, we will always be the bad guys in an accident.
>> Edited by vipers on Saturday 5th November 14:18
Even if a car is, for example exceeding 30 in a 30 zone, surely a pedestrian crossing the road who looked first, would see it?. Lets back off the car driver, and concentrate on educating kids at school for a start on basic road safety awareness for pedestians/cyclists.
There is a classic junction in Aberdeen, you come up to Union Road, waiting to turn left, you can bet your life on it that when your lights go green, as you turn the corner, there are a dozen or so bloody pedestrians, and I am talking, grown up folk, who think they have time to nip across the road in time, although the pedestrian lights have been red for a minute or so.
Folk walking the streets just done appreciate the concentration drives have to have these days to drive, a) within the speed limit, b) watch cars behind them, c) cars in front of them, need I go on...... not really we are all motorists. I Supose perception will neve change, we will always be the bad guys in an accident.
>> Edited by vipers on Saturday 5th November 14:18
Ridiculous. At best a knee jerk reaction to item in "Times" about Lincs reducing speed limit by not buying anymore scams und - und I shall for once give some credence to their comment that they claim visibility on basis that they give full listing to local radio travel news und presumably ensure full visibility. Und add this to Trev's programme und we have a knne-jerk "on the defensive" top counter these negatives 
But ist simple - you teach children to cross a road in first place. You do not tell them that a hit at 30 mph will ensure they survive und anything faster will surely kill. as this imply to thickest of thick that they can step out in front of slow moving vehicle 
You tell the truth - walk in in front of any car at any speed und it
hurt when limb ist broken. Und you tell them that can avoid this white-heat und orbit around sun pain by simply looking out for safest place to cross (not on bend or from between parked cars) und to look for bearby crossing. That they cross road only when safe to do so, judging speed und distance und always alwayws looking out und listening for traffic. Und same apply to cyclists. Also they should wear something which make them seen in dark - little flurorescent arm band or sash und a little key ring torch even can make biggest difference. 
But ist simple - you teach children to cross a road in first place. You do not tell them that a hit at 30 mph will ensure they survive und anything faster will surely kill.
as this imply to thickest of thick that they can step out in front of slow moving vehicle You tell the truth - walk in in front of any car at any speed und it
hurt when limb ist broken. Und you tell them that can avoid this white-heat und orbit around sun pain by simply looking out for safest place to cross (not on bend or from between parked cars) und to look for bearby crossing. That they cross road only when safe to do so, judging speed und distance und always alwayws looking out und listening for traffic. Und same apply to cyclists. Also they should wear something which make them seen in dark - little flurorescent arm band or sash und a little key ring torch even can make biggest difference. My complaint has just been sent in 
I said:
The news item presented by Sangita Myska about the death of Abigail Craen was extremely one-sided and also somewhat mistaken. She stated as fact that "hundreds of lives could be saved if we slowed down and stick to speed limits". Could you please inform me where Ms Myska got the information that driving at the speed limit (or slowing down to it presuming we all drive over the limit) will reduce road deaths? In her article she implied that breaking the speed limit resulted in Abigail's death by trying to show how dangerous breaking the speed limit is considered by some.
Figures from Surrey Police show that breaking the speed limit is only ninth on the list of fatal causes. From www.surreypa.gov.uk/docs/May04/21
Wrong course/positioning 11.7%
Too fast for conditions (unrelated to speed limit) 9.5%
Crossing road heedless of traffic 8.5%
No apparent cause 6.9%
Alcohol/drugs 6.9%
Turning right injudiciously 6.1%
Slippery road 4.8%
Misjudged distance to car in front 4.3%
Exceeded speed limit 3.0%
I feel that blaming speeding drivers (as the article did) so heavily for road deaths is wrong, especially when there are so many other more prominent causes - namely pedestrians negligently entering the carriageway which was the third biggest cause of road deaths in Surrey. To then imply that someone breaking the speed limit killed poor Abigail is very poor reporting. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the driver was speeding - the only evidence there is suggests that the driver is a criminal (simply because they didn't stop). A car can kill someone at 1mph. Just because someone tragically got run over does not automatically mean the driver was breaking the speed limit. By airing this report the BBC has simply reinforced the statistically untenable "Speed Kills" mantra that the government and Safety Camera Partnerships constantly shove down the public's throat.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff